When FOR UPDATE/SHARE is used with LIMIT, put the LockRows plan node

underneath the Limit node, not atop it.  This fixes the old problem that such
a query might unexpectedly return fewer rows than the LIMIT says, due to
LockRows discarding updated rows.

There is a related problem that LockRows might destroy the sort ordering
produced by earlier steps; but fixing that by pushing LockRows below Sort
would create serious performance problems that are unjustified in many
real-world applications, as well as potential deadlock problems from locking
many more rows than expected.  Instead, keep the present semantics of applying
FOR UPDATE after ORDER BY within a single query level; but allow the user to
specify the other way by writing FOR UPDATE in a sub-select.  To make that
work, track whether FOR UPDATE appeared explicitly in sub-selects or got
pushed down from the parent, and don't flatten a sub-select that contained an
explicit FOR UPDATE.